1994 Supreme(SC) 72
B.L.HANSARIA, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
State Bank Of India – Appellant
Versus
Samarendra Kishore Endow – Respondent
Advocates:
A.K.SRIVASTAVA, HEMANTIKA VATII, KAILASH VASUDEV
Judgement Key Points
- Respondent appointed as cashier in State Bank of India in 1968, promoted to Officer Grade-II, then Grade-I, then Branch Manager at Amarpur Branch, Tripura after transfer from Phek Branch, Nagaland in January 1981. (!) [1000301440001][1000301440002]
- Respondent submitted TA bill of Rs. 12,194.80 for transfer, including claims for truck hire (Rs. 9,500), loading/unloading (Rs. 120), and list of 19 packages of household goods. [1000301440001] (!) (!) (!)
- Charge I: Submitted false receipt for Rs. 9,500 truck hire from M/s Balram Hariram, neither hired full truck nor spent amount, violating Rule 32(4). (!)
- Charge II: False receipts for Rs. 60 each for loading/unloading from Shri Ram Prasad, violating Rule 32(4). (!)
- Charge III: Furnished inflated list of 19 packages when only 8 transported, to derive undue benefit, violating Rule 32(4). (!)
- Charge IV: Disproportionate assets to known income sources at Phek Branch, violating Rule 32(4). (!)
- Charge V: Disbursed construction loan to Shri Asong Snock (Rs. 90,000 on 7/5/1981, Rs. 10,000 on 10/5/1981) without verifying construction progress per Regional Office instructions, violating Rules 32(1), 32(4). (!)
- Inquiry Officer found all five charges proved; Disciplinary Authority agreed on Charges I, II, III, V (disagreed on IV), imposed penalty of removal; Appellate Authority dismissed appeal. [1000301440002]
- High Court allowed writ: (1) non-supply of Inquiry Officer's report vitiated punishment; (2) appellate order non-speaking, violating Rule 51(2); (3) findings on Charges I-III, V perverse/no evidence. [1000301440002][1000301440003]
- Non-supply of Inquiry Officer's report not vitiating as punishment order pre-20/11/1990. [1000301440003][1000301440004]
- Charge I finding supported: contradictory receipts (Rs. 9,500 then Rs. 2,755), transporter's evidence disbelieved, no movement on represented dates per documents (P.Ex-23, P.Ex-10,9); not "no evidence." [1000301440004][1000301440005]
- Charge II finding supported: discrepancies in dates, non-examination of Ram Prasad (not main reason he was fictitious), loading/unloading not on mentioned dates. [1000301440005][1000301440006]
- Charge III: Similar to II; finding not "no movement" but not on assigned dates. [1000301440006][1000301440007]
- Charge V finding supported: Loan terms (Ex.20) required phased disbursement verifying prior utilization/progress; entire amount released in 3 days without verification. [1000301440007][1000301440008]
- High Court judgment set aside; findings not perverse, based on some evidence. [1000301440008][1000301440009]
- Courts/Tribunals under Art.226 or Administrative Tribunals Act have judicial review jurisdiction, not appellate: cannot re-appreciate evidence if some legal evidence supports findings reasonably; cannot substitute own findings. [1000301440010] (!) [1000301440011] (!) (!)
- Tribunal/High Court cannot interfere with penalty quantum if inquiry proper, natural justice followed, findings based on evidence (even if irrelevant/extraneous parts); penalty not justiciable unless mala fide/arbitrary; within Disciplinary/Appellate Authority's exclusive domain. [1000301440010][1000301440011] (!) (!) (!) [1000301440012]
- Main charge: false TA claim; Charge V: no finding of irregularity/loss to bank; removal possibly harsh, but for Disciplinary/Appellate Authority, not Court/Tribunal. [1000301440013][1000301440014]
- Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside; Appellate Authority to reconsider lesser punishment within 4 months. [1000301440014]
(1) THIS appeal is preferred by the State Bank of India against the decision of the Gauhati High court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent.
(2) THE respondent was appointed as a cashier in the appellant bank in the year 1968. He was promoted to Officer Grade-11 and then to Grade-1. While he was working at Phek Branch in Nagaland, he was promoted to the rank of Branch Manager and was transferred to Amarpur Branch in the State of Tripura in January 1981. The appellant joined at Amarpur and claimed certain amount by way of reimbursement for the expenses incurred by him in shifting his belongings and other articles to Amarpur from Phek. An inquiry was made into the correctness of the receipts and other documents produced by him in that connection (and into some other alleged irregularities committed by him) and he was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry on five charges. The charges read as follows:
"CHARGE 1 That on 10/02/1982, you submitted a Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs. 12,194.80 in connection with your permanent transfer from Phek Branch to Amarpur Branch. In the said bill you make a claim of Rs. 9,500.00 being the hiring charges incurred by yo
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
